ΩԸƽˮʹ罭ϣ
et revelabitur quasi aqua iudicium et iustitia quasi torrens fortis

 

[]ն 壺Ҫ
[]˹.F.ն* **
һʵ嵽


򲻹Ǵﵽ佱ͷ븺ֶΡԵˣڹڳУȻעƳΪķ䡣һϽһ޶ȵѭ˳֮ijֱ׼ôַǹġͨƴΪ塢ʵ˵塣


Ȼ֤ɷijĿ͹ȷ⣬ֻ㡣Ϊһ棬һҵѱ֤ʵǣIJߺ͹۲ߣǷƽһǷܳķΪءһ棬ִᶼȱ͹۵Ļ߱ձϿɵĹյı׼ںܶ£ͬһͬסΪһʵĽʵԵķ׼ֳȡ

ʲôdz


ʲôdz򣿴𰸲ȫ˵ġͼȷ֤һıʣʽһֹѧ֮СDz˶ܾκν綨һɥʧΣգΪڹ㷺ϣƶȶǡ򡱡Peters1991


ǾͷʱָĽͻḡԺͻǷͥٲҲһֳ򡣵̸УֻеԤõĿнʱԷУΪ


ٱغ߶ˣThibaut and Walker 1975ȥΪֻڷ䷢ʱDZҪġѧDzơǽЩ滮δרעڽ׵ij󣬼չһо򣻻仰˵ǻĶġһԣҲɹ۲ڡ෢֯ķҲˡЩ򶼲ҪȨƽԤȷ䡣Լµ̸УƩ缯̸УڴҲɳ


һ棬Ҵһų˼򡢷ϵͳ̸ҶоҲлɣSee Peters1991һѧоһ˵dz򡣵һܷɹƵĵ飬Ʃ˵ɹijеģȻֵע⡣


ȻɽЩ׷ĹΪĿֵº̩գLind and Tyler 1988˵ųЩ̣ǶԳΪơǿозЩûʵʾ򣬳ϵԵ𾴻ЩأЩ޹ϵ


ҿѧʹõijֳѧʹõijΪխ¬Luhmann1969Ҳֽխij涨ΪһϵͳϵͳֻһֶضǵóһԼľԤƵƶȼỷΪȾֻо߱Щij̶ֳ϶ⲿΡ


ЩڷɵġܹԼijϣԷͳǺġ¬Ŀһ£ΪǿһѾõʵڳظʵʩһܼһҪĹȻ̩պ͸Tyler and Folger 1980оĹ;ijͻҲɽг򻯽Ϊֳͻᵼ¾һŷһʽĴļľȻɣ׷֯ϵͳڵĸַʽǷ۵⣬ͬ漰ƽFairnessֲ̩գGreenberg and Tyler 1987ҵѳijһϵͳıУƽijЩ̺ͬͷе塣һӳоų̩պͿCaineڼ쵼Ȩһо1981Tyler, Rasinki, and Spodick 1985ҲǶԻڴߵĹеѡΪоɪWasserman 1992ἰķʱҺҵǽΪ̶ȵı׼ΪҵIJ޶ijƵκһ涼һĽۣĨɱ˳оͨĽ֮

ά


ѧѧоУ漰ġ塱򡰹ƽѧͷ淶ġԼ޹ء෴רעڿԱع۲쵽ijһʵ


ݵٱغ߶ˣThibaut and Walker 1975оDZֿ͹۵ij۵ij塣ֵº̩ս͹۵ij嶨Ϊ߱ġѭĹ淶׼Ĺܣʹþ;̱ӹƽƩ˵ȥijЩԽܵӻƫLind and Tyler 19883벹һǣĹ淶׼Ͳһǿ͹۵ġʱЩ׼ܻᡰԵԽܡʱġ


Կ͹۵ijȤҪʦ֪һ֤ڷ࣬ƳڷٺŵóһġʵʺоȻͨDzй֤ʻŵоdzоΪһ򱻹ע۳ѧ֧䣬Ҫоߺ͹۲߶ضķӦLind and Tyler 1988


Ҳһ⡣ڹȥʮУۼʡԾ׽뷨ͥбȽϷоһоṩ˳͹ۺ۷ϡ

ġͳ


ĿǷ򸺵ڳյ㣬һʤһʧܡǼǶֻܸͿΪʤܻʧܷʤ˵һĽǹģʧܷԣһĽܹDzģԽԭ鲢û򵥡ͨ£еDzֻĽǻὫеһϵ¼ڣյȨ⡣ڷо漰ζ̬ѭʲôԭ


ѧȺУоһԶĴͳڶʮʮչһؽܳ˼뱻ΪƽоEquity ResearchAdams 1963; Berkowitz and Walster 1976ƽۼǶ跨ȡ͸֮IJΪÿһеĵˡ߽ǹ۲ߣʶظжһһȨ⡣Ӧأÿ˶ŬһΪǹĽΪؽȡж


оĹоϵͳĹչʾĻԭԭǣ


ƽԭ


ƽԭ


ԭ


ʵԭҶꡣѧDzͬѧDzЩԭĹ淶ݡѧҵоҳЩԸ̬ӰıΪѡijһԭɡ⣬ѧһоijһԭἯŵڲϵӰ졣оṩ˴ֵùעϸڣȻܻشе⡣ۼҵδһҪķԭǷԼΪһƽԭ򣬶DZƽԭƽԭijһἯŵıֱּʲôӰ졣


۷еϸ⡣ϵ۵⣬һѵǣƽԭֵעĵطdzӽѡһԭʵʩ൱ijҪֵĻֻҪߵгӦķͿˡ


ƽԭԭʵʩѵöˡԭʹٹ⡣Ʃʲôļ۸Ǻʵģ𺦳̶ȣijһҪԼǶ䷣Ϳˣʲô˲ƶЩӦԲ⾭ۡ


ijһһʼ⡣˫һԸĽȴֻΪDzͬĸԹƶԷԼĸ˫ڽеҲǸֲͬԤڵġʹ˫ĽΪּۻ۵ľ˫̸һζǴ໥ĸȵĹʶЭ̹̣˫Ա̸ϴ󷽶һвŤǶΪЭ̵Ľǹƽġ


·ԸĹҪڽееġ˼۸Ƿ񹫵ȴҪг̶ȺͲƲ״ǡȻ߻Ƚͬ˵ijۡijһƷĵǰ۸֪ģǹֵҪ߶ȡͶرƽԣij̶ֳϿΪƽȶԴԭȡ


һ߶֯УڶԭҲͬʹãȨԭʦΪԭĻԭ򣬶DzԵġѧҵĽǶȿһԭIJԵģÿһȨĻԭȷƽȡȨΣͨƽ÷㡣жϲԶ׼ġһԽΪλġԵԭ


оѧΪµıоĿɽDZڵӰ죨Tyler 1984


ΪرͽĽݣͼľԽ


ԤڻϣĽԱȽ


ͬоԤڵĽͬȶԴ


Լı׼ΪǹĽ壩


ȨʿϷԣ


ijĹ


Щ໥ǸԶġ˵ԤڵĽ˱⣬Ϊǹıһԣ·ķɵλӦƽȵġijһҲܵĺϷԵӰ졣Ȼо֤ʵ˲ߺ͹۲߶Զطֿͳ壬˽ĿɽԲȡнҲǷΪƽȡݳǹƽĻ裬ĶֲμӽĻ׽һṩķΪʹijЩгĽ͹϶DzνġЧӦֵº̩նһṩжĽͣΪʹרҵʿ˵׵нǷƽҲǼdzѵ顣Ϊ˹ڳгһϽݾ͵ʽоLind 1944aʩأSchmidt 1997ṩ˳ͷ໥ϸɪWasserman 1997һѧҵĽǶȳ˳ͽĹϵ


оչ


1975꣬ٱغ߶ˡ塷һ飬һڵػ֮ȻʱҲȫµĹٱغ߶һѧȽһ۲ʵСƾԼһϵʵĹʵʩΪо˱׼ȡ׿ijɹ


1975оУٱغ߶Ϊڵµĸֳͻ򣬶ɹΪӵƶµ˫̸еϲþšһˣִ˫ȫų򣨳ƣͽƣһˣֿҲڵСڴͳķͥУɷþԻٵɲ߿ƳģʽеУƺ̶ܴڵԼСǾʵΧԼ֤ķʽݡŷ޴½رǵ¹ľʽϣ*롰ʽϡְָȨģʽעУں̶ܴɷٿơ


ٱغ߶Ϊؾ˶ijֳƫáһҪѸٵصõоʽǷǮʱСѡζʧΪѹǵѡĵԤĻһ棬ŵǵȡöԳĸƣ˾ɥʧ˶ԳĿơڶԼı׼ı׼Խ٣ҳԵԽҪԱԼЭ̳һ򡣵Ƿ䷽ʽ⡣ߵļ裬ϸСijͻҲѺЭ̸ҪĸԤ


ʵ۲,ٱغ߶˼бȽ˿ƺ;ģʽǵóΪʽϳڿ͹ϣΪﵽþĹߣϣߵھϳΪͬʵ鶼ϳ


ڵȱ֤ݶĴоΪڿϹУʦԶԼ˲֤ʱ桢ǿȥѰ֤ݣ


ڵƷٵԿ


ܸõطֹΪ֤ݳʾʱ˳¶԰ʵ


ܾΡ˸еﻹ޹ϳ۷漫оĿɽԡμʵԼİʹԼڰнҪεĽɫ֪֮ĻRawls״̬ƫÿơ


ڵDamaska 1975; Diamond and Zeisel 1977; Hayden and Anderson 1979ΪЩͨѧʵĽ鹹ϸ΢ͻСƲˣڴھ׵ʵDzõġڶʮʵʰʮǰڣ̩պ͸Tyler and Folger 1980ǹ۲칫;ijͻУȻڽͨΥ´΢°۲쵽˳Ӱ죨Tyler 1984ڰʮڣѧ˵ش°ͨԼ飺طе˵ٵصġ⣬ﷸǶ̷ʵԵĿоҲ˶оǶԳȵĿأHeinz 1985; Landis and Goodstein 1987; Casper, Tyler and Fisher 1988ֵº̩գLind and Tyler 1988Ϊٱغ߶ʵϵ͹Լֵijáֵº̩ռжϵоʱõٺͷͬҪĽɫ


ƽĹҪ


һӶоͼֱͨʵķ硰ԴĹ̶ΣߡİʱóĹ͹ƽΣLind and Tyler 1988ʱḽʼٵĹԣͥĻĺϷԡЩԳһܽʾЩʹԲ˵ǹġٱغ߶ԽչΪؼıҲһͨͬʽġȽϸӵijԡо÷Ȩȡչơֵº̩գLind and Tyler 1988żáչƻȨʹ֮Ҳƺʧˡ


ڸֲͬоУǿҳɿܴٽƩгԵܱ˵һ뾯ӴܴӰ죨Casper, Tyler, and Fisher 1988ʦǷʱ뱻һȡ顢տŵҲΪҪ߽ףPlea BargainingеıˣΪвһĹʣһ顣˵Ծٽ壨Lind and Tyler 1988ԳԵĽҲͬãLind and Tyler 1988һ棬Ƿֻƾ֤ۼƵоWasserman 1992οΤ˹Wellsһо


̩յоĿLeventhal scheme 1980߶ԳԽϸķṩ˺ijһ۹̶ȵļҪ׼Ƶо Bierbrauer 1982; Lerner and Whitehead 1980Ϣȷԣǰһԣӣ˫ͬȵij飨representation߷ԺɶԲþԼϵȷԣص۲μ Lind and Tyler 1988; Tyler 1988̩֥Ӹоз֣ԳУʵ߹ڷͥǷעӡءʽķͥϣٱغ߶Ĺ̿ƣҲ֤dzһҪб׼ʵ߶һԵӳ̶ȳϵص͡¹ѧߵоǼΪӲþĿɾԣBarrett and Lamm 1989


оʵڳڶڷڱԺĺ͸ӵоЩɳỷڱ


Щڱ֮һǵٱغ߶ѿǵľ׵͡1978ؿо·Ϊоľ͵˳Ĺ淶֮Сڴἰǣ±أAubert1963ͿһַdzӽоȻûٱغ߶˵ע⡣άVidmar 1990Թ½ijоΪľõġ


һЩоΪ˫ģڳᱳҲֵÿǡڸFry and Leventhal 1979ԼᣨFry and Cheney 1981оУͨȽϸּͥϵϵԼġĺͲضᱳıʵߵԱѡ任ᱳðʧܽһ£ΪЧܱ任ᱳӰ졣


ĴĻһʼܵĹעٱغ߶˷ֶʽĿϴһǿҵƫáȻϿƫǷԵĻϵƫΪ˿ֿΪõΪˣоһЩԱڷ͵¹չͬʵ顣һЩߴЩʵ鷴еóΪԿƵƫǷdzձLind et al. 1978; Vidmar 1990ٱغ߶ȽϽΪӵ¹ĽȷġΪǶԵġάԴҲʾɣΪֵһ˵ʵõľϷʽԶ׼ȷʵϣRennig 1997¹͵ľϳܹṩijЩơȶͶֵ¡̩Ŭƾһ׵Ļϳչʵ飬Bierbrauer et al. 1994ЩʵϲֵܷµоLind et al. 1978ΪЩʵ鲢Ϊ˲ʵϲʽijŷ޴½ij򣬶ֻ顰̿ơһȻܵ˵ǵĽ۲˵ȣ30ѧΪ̫ˡҪǣͥĴӡܵӺ͵ӰӰķִͥýҲѽƳ󴫵ŷޡһλ¹ңһηͥͥУǰʲôʱ*¹Ǵ½ϵĴǷְҵ߶˾еIJȡAssessor/ƵʽӢJury/šעֵ£Leung and Lind 1986оṩһЩȷʵ֤ijֳƫõȷĻ


Գ۽˵


ԳĺϷиֲͬĽ͡ȻЩδΣһdzԶǽࡣ


ݹۣInstrumental TheoryĺϷʵϳرʺڵóʵʹľڲ࣬̽׼Ĺп͹۵ĺ۵һ档۷˵Ʃ磬˻ΪĿ֤õ֤ݣࡰ͹۵ġ۲ΪDzɿġ


һ빤ӦĽţҪڷѧѱϤҳ֮ΪۣSubstitution Theory£һʵʹķӦġ޷壬ҪѼĴۡþ׼Ǻ壬ۣȫڡʱȡʵԵķ׼ӾԵڲʵġij塱Rawls 1971*޶˹ѧ˵197187ijָһֳһܹȷĽԭDzнȷĶ׼ij˽ĹԡԲΪѡһضϷϸϷжIJɴ˲ĽĹԣһԶκξĽע


˵ġ֮䣬һıۣExpressive Theoryıбֵº̩յѧ˵еļֵ֡ΪֶΪ仰˵ΪǴﵽijһĿĵֶΣΪĿġ˱ԡֻ߳Ϊ˺档DZΪ糿dzΪ˱ֽͳľʿȺζȴͨṩļ̵⣬ʳֶתΪĿġ˼Ƶǣ򲻹漰ʧҲϵұֲ֡н͵ʣԲľܾζųͷˣųеı˱ͥ↑ͺȴĴ治ԭûܡڷͥϱԼijһ֯ڲڹΪ̽ʱ۵ļֵҲܵõ֣Lind 1994bƺǹ˲˼ĻǴͷӽ磨˵ͬ׷棬Լһʵ֡ҹֶΣʷӽ磨ǵĿʹ͹Ǹ˳ǵľʵˡȻЧӦڽ׼еòڷͥԡڹᵼ෴Чѧ̸۵ĴЧӦCohen 1985, Folger 1977ΪЧӦȻù˽͹Ҫȡ롣


ΪԳ·ȨҲ˽͵Ľ˵Ϊֵº̩ͣLind and Tyler 1988Ϊֽǽģ˵κĵطǺ޼ֵġDzȡ˼ֵ֣Value-expressiveһţΪDzûаѳʵijĿһֶλĿıֵһֹ淶ӽǡеĹ淶ݰųӣʵ׷壬ԼȨֵ۵ĹܣҪָĽЧӦǿ͹۴ڵġ෴ЧҲ֧ҵһ۵㡣Ϊ򲻵𵽽ãҲ𵽳ͷá


1979꣬ķһΪϼͷ飨Malcolm Feeley 1979ڴУŦһ·ͥΪͥУƲζԱ˲ġкͱǰĴͻӡֵº̩ԼҲἰ֥Ӹһλͥջ᳷ijЩӣԭΪеıڷԺдһѾܵˡ


ڹȥУ¹ҽΪ漰թ顣Աڵʱҽʩ˾޴ѹвûղᣬϸָüڵнʹԼִҵԼDzйĻǵİ칫ԱͲ˽òַ֤ͥһ¾ͷԺͳϾͿɷָ֣ص֮һ޴IJⲻʹ˲ɣƲñЩδ֤кιʧϡ


ȻЩ˵ĴرǷɳ򣬲ζƲãΪƲ׼ȷʵʼմиԣǴƶԾ˵̶ȲоỺ١ûӹרҵ۾ǵԱ˵ã¹ܷԺBverfGE 7, 109֧һԤȾһд𸴡߶Դ˵ķӦս´ʣsection 169a StPOгӳΪǶԱ˼ᴦɡȨ棬Ҳ뿼ʵ𺦵⳥⡣ʵоdzصĸܺ˴ľ޴ѹЧӦƲЧӦδﵽ̶ֳȣʽؽһЧӦɵġ


ֵº̩գ1988رһֶԳЧӦǡͣdz֮ΪȺֵۣgroup value theoryijһһĽǸһijȴһԶãӳijһȺļֵϵˣijоȣһвҪرǿһʵijһȺķ򣬸Աйλӡ󡣳þ˸оǷ߶̶ϱǵȺܣں̶ܴϾǶԸԼֵ͵λĸоһЧӦʹùڶԸֳ쳣СǡǡΪڳиᵱӴڳбԴڳǷ񱻵һ˿ܵأ˵ءֵĸĹ۲֤һۣLind et al. 1990; see also Vidmar 1997ڷѧǶ뵱ȻΪͳķͥΪһ֡ŤĽȻٴܣʽijͻÿһжơǡ෴ķǣƫɷͥٲͥǷʽԽ취ΪǸеڷͥУΪһ˼ҵܵõĶԴȵijϲºij֮䣬ǴһIJTyler, Huo, and Lind 1993


ɪWasserman 1989ֲּͳЧӦۣġ滻ԡۡһΪijˣὫΪɱԽܡڴжԳһףó˽ⲢʧһۡԶֵע⣬ӡ֤һЩۣҪме𰸣ǷijһͻܳĽǡǡ෴ǶԳĽʹóԵùۼʵоĻѰһĴDzܡȻ¬УҲܷ滻¬ʧ߻αǵʧLuhmann 1969ǻѰһﷸ򡱣һλƫķ٣һλְʦһ˻ѵ֤ˡ¬ʦڹжǽɱʧתΪɢĸ˷޺޵


ƶȵĺϷ


һЩѧߵоУѧоרעڳеĸ˺͸顣һһۣǾǽھijͳĽ⣬תΪΪƶȵij͸ĵֺϷԵ⡣Ҳйƶȵоϵֵº̩ռֳ塰ھԷȨͷƶȵķӦʱ˱ȷ乫ԶΪҪĽɫ1988


̩պʲ˹Tyler and Rasinski 1991ƣԶ߷ԺоΪ˱ЩܳӰ˵ڸijƶȵijжƶȱĺϷԡɭGibson 1991ǿ෴ʵǣڶƶȵ֧֣Դڹڵβ룬ӵеμֵۣԼƶȾʧۻֶƶȵ֧˾ĿɽԡɭĹ۵㣬ΪڶԶƶ֪޼ǾڼٶΪϷƶȰһȱĸ֪ƶȵĺϷԼɼʲôáɭţ̩պʲ˹Ĺ۵෴뷨ƶȵձϷԾͽĸܾзáʵĹ۵¬ڡͨĺϷĹϵͳdzӽ


¹о


ǰᵽĴѧߵоڵ¹ֱйسʵоûСԭ֮һǣŷ޴½رǵ¹Գͨͨҡкܳһʱ䣬ڵ¹ֻΪãGilles 1981, 1992ǵ¹оͳIJ졣ָڵ¹谭ʵо£Ժ˽ϵ˵dzѣ˲ܵ飬ΪԺԱΪɽоܾоҵѲõġԵĵ绰ɷ÷δ㷺ܡڵ¹ûноƻоżҲijЩݣe.g., Rottleuthner 1983ԳʵоûС


ڵ¹ȶͶBierbrauer 1982dzרԱ֮һغķBarrett and Lamm 1989оΪ۲ѧͷ֮ĹϵǵóĽǵ¹˽Ϊ߸󡣿ͱȶKlein and Bierhoff 1991ֵһʵڸԱ̶ͬȵĹ̲ǰ£ԹԱ˾乤ֵķӦֿĵġģչ뻷оֳһֳڵͣڳﻮģﴦʩвijͻһֳͼ㹤ҵĺBora 1993, 1995; van den Daele 1991ŴѧоĽһڡط壨Local Justiceо⣬һʺоĿĹӿ⣬ӿ֥Ӹ硢Ͱ˹½СоǡطԡijһĽͽֱصķElster 1990; Schmidt 1992, 1993һо˱ȫҽԴ䣬رֲ٣ãְԼ˽˺͹ĽߣѧѧһȻʵǣصķ׼žԵá


¹Էͥо̩յоDZԵ¹ı˵ϵش󡣹նHaller 1987; Haller and Machura 1995그ԼǶijͷݵĿǶгͷǶоķӡۺԼԲþԤڣнķӳ̶ء⣬пǵУֻгԷٵʶصġЩǾҵ෨ٲμӵСҵ෨ٵĸлԳͷʶءʹٵΪûʼյرƽͬõı׼˶ԷΪ׼ͬsee Tyler 1984֮ܶնоΪȺֵṩһЩݣHaller and Machura 1995


տ˵¹ͼԺıˣMachura 1994a, 1994bовõķΪ׼ٴãTyler 1984, 1990ܽǷʵǵ١ٺǵʦͳ໥ںͬȻҪΪңȴΪٵĹΪҡԽ⡢ͷ乫˶ԷԺͷٵԼδͥеĹЩо֤ȺֵۣMachura 1994a, 1994b÷˹Ĭṩһݹڽо棬һڵܺ˺ͼӺMessmer 1997


½һ˱ȶͶԱͳоBierbrauer, Gottwald, and Birnbreier-Sthlberger 1995о˺Ů˶Բͬij̬޼RichliһƪĽоصSchunemann±ܼ쳤ͷٵĺԷٵԻشӰ졣

塢ϵͳ۷


ͨĺϷ


1969꣬¬ˡͨĺϷһ⣬ιϵͳֳͨΪȡúϷԡЩضڵóԼľϵͳ¬Ϊ򣬶ЩϵͳֻѰĹ֮СԮӰѡٿʼԼӰΪ̡Ϊϸķͥڴֻ۷ͥ


ұ¬һǩһ֮ԡۣIsolation Theory¬ijÿһֳͻձ黯һ۵㣬ԽԽĻ⣬ԽԽڣֶΡͨ޶˵ĶߡȷָԼ˴ỷиֹơ


¬ΪͳĹɡԳҲĮġԾϷԵijϲǻڵǷȷžıȻԡȷԺԡ෴صĸṩһѧϰ̣ǽܳĽΪΪݡΨһҪⲿϵijɹȻ֤ʵı˻о⣬Ȼ˳ӣΪDzòʶ޷ԱѺͨڷһоֳɹֻڶԼоijƶȻ˵Χвʵ֡dzĹףҪȷǵõ˹ĶԴǸı˵˵ṹ滷ַͨʽڳʹ˽ܾѡ񣨾Ȼϲij޿κεؽ


¬һѧģѧģۡѧ˵Ҫһɳ֮ΪԼѧ˵ͨһݵϵͳγɵģ¬ȽΪһѧϰ̡ΪԵԤھоԵ壬Ԥ˵ұǹˡ©סfunnel of procedure¬˳ɹеǰرdzĹԼĹԡЩֻڳᱳ²ǿܵġ¬һδĵĺ⣬ٴκΧϵͳ໥֧֣Щϵͳ磺Ĺԣп鹹ģٵĹڵ¹ΪAôBʽĿԣһùȷȷķչšÿһ棬ҪDZΪԡij˶ijһIJ벢δֱܵǿȣѾΧĻܽźšʧҲܷԡΪֿԡ


¬˴ǿҵĿ飬ҪΪǶ¬Ϊ¬۵ǷƶܷϷػȡϣʵֻһƶõġռ˶¬Machura 1997˹Bussmann½巽õϵͳ򣬼ȡ¬ڷǽһԷýһ


ͨ˼ԷReflexive Lawij


Щܽ¬ڡͨĺϷѧߣҲϿһѧ˵ִĺϷԻѾ˱仯ԭΪļֵʶɥʧѾ߱ؽ𽥵رԹʶȡ˼ԷߵøԶӦһΪܵ˵ϵͳڸԣҶֱӵرͨǿͽ˰պʴ̼ĵأעҪʧܵģe.g. Teubner 1982; Teubner and Willke 1984; Teuber 1986, 1989˵ִɹܺߣΪЩϵͳDD塢̻빤ᡢҵ˾ڴýȵȣڹҵıӻ֮·չ˹ģԣܹѹҵӰ졣ѾΪȨͿƵҪߣѽұȵ˵ֿߵĵλTeubner and Willke 1984˵ٳ˷˼ԷķչδȡҵĸԤ巨ɣΪͨɵ󹤾ߡ˼ԷΪֻṩijֳ򲻽ָͥ򣬶ִָ֯ȨƵij򣬲Դ˹ֱӽĸнǵľסԼơǹ˾ڲļ幤ҵЭ͸ֹͬ߹ҪУ͵·IJ붼Ԥ֪ġڼ߲ο˴ϸϵķɵĹԼǷչļ淶͵±׼ڻ棬ԷԺ𽥵ؽעӼֵļͿѧжϣתƵʵʾߵijΪϣɷɺͻ˹ɶ׶ķϣBverfGE 53, 30-96¹߷ԺձóֶȥܷȨûŪĻܷһԡƵƷչ


ɺάˣTeubner and Willke 1984˼ԷһҲԻϵͳ֮Уضʽһڳⱳ·dzҪΪҲԻϵͳ¬뷨ѧġ¬ԵҲμķ˼ԷۡϣܽͨĺϷ͡˼ԷϵͳһۺԿϵ


Щŷ˼Է۵ѧߣڽͽͷɵ״ȷܹһɽչ½׶ΣTeubner 1982һϣ˼Է߷Ǻ͹˹HabermasԼãEderڷչ۷Ĺ۵һ£ĺϷֻͨϽҪʽ


˼ԷһδձܣͬܵǿĹHartmann 1987; Nahamowitz 1987, 1988ΪȫòһбҪἰҪȫһ⣬ָڷ˼Էʵ飭Ը뷨ĸ߶ȳ򻯵Ĺ淶Ҫϵsee, for example Eder 1990; Peters 1991ϵĽȫڷ˸ѧɵ̸ۣe.g., Habermas 1987


һ͵ijᷢչΪһ壬ṩδҵṹнͻģʽһģʽȫʵԵӰ졣һ۵㣬طҪⲢЩ򣬶ڷѡУEder 1990Ӹ˵ЩԵأͬеݣʽͷʽĻ⡣Ʃ簣ãEder 1990, 157˵Էɹ淶һϵľ幦ܣǷַͷ̸ᡢԼе񡣳ڴͳֻǹֽڹ淶϶ԱԱǽڽеۺ;Ļᡱ˵˹Peters 1991򽫳ͳִģʽӳΪ⣭ͻװõĹ˶ա


ֹڳ򻯺ͷ˼Է۶ɳ֮ΪۣΪԷΪĿꡣȻͨ򣬷ԭŵȷߵһָӼijѧ˵Ҹе档ֵº̩գLind and Tyler 1988, 151ἰȻֻһעУٱءΪԴԽԽܵƣ彫ṩһԽҪԴ⿴ijһȡԷ䡣޷֤˻ڵٱƷеijҰΪ۵Ļҹֿעˡ

淶ѧ


淶ѧԴԷһָԾ߱ºġijۡΪĿ꣨see Habermas 1987λڷѧΪϵͳ۵Ĺ۵൱޶˹Rawls 1971͹˹Habermas 1983, 1987, 1992һӪָѧԴػ죬ȴһۡ˶ΪιгĺϷԼȿ׷ݵһֱ뷢չijԣһԵ⣨empathetic understanding߼ߡ޶˹ɡƽȵĸ˵ĺ壬ָѡ߽Ȩԭ򣻽Դڲij򡣵޶˹۵ij򣬲ʵģȷĽֻһ涨Թڹ˹ԽЧԣ*validity롰ϷԡDD֤ϵģ෴ԴԵĽжձЭ̽һҲֻһ涨Թ˾гΪһʵijAlexy 1978, 1981; Kaufmann 1989ԾͽжDD һ˹1983ĸDDΪṩ˻ӦΪִιҵijĺϷṩ˻ɳǶһ޶ģΪƶԵģҲǶģ׼ӽȫijҪ󡣳ƶԱ׼ĻǣһDzߵĽǶȿһ԰Ƿ˹Habermas 1987, 13 նڵӢ룩жTschentscher 1997ϸȽ޶˹˹ʹóһġ*The Function of Procedural Justice in Theories of JusticeĿɲμϾѧۡ2001괺šע

ߡоӽ


ЩΧݷ׳ʵоʵԵĺ͹淶Եġ΢۵ĺͺ۵оڴ˻ϣƳڷڽ轻ѧҪ֮һ಻ΪЩһʵԴڽһۺ۵ĿԺԴиֲͬɡ


ѧҵоػ˳ͷĽߡij˻ع˵ٱغ߶ˣThibaut and Walker 1975ʮԿչооͳʱȻ׷ʣǷյķDz׷ݵ塣漰Щ跨ۡƾ轻һȥеϵѧҺѧҵоͳʮʮ𣬲ͣBlau 1964ɺʩ׶Goulderner and Sprehe 1965Լ˹Homans 1960, 1972ָо򣬲漴ΪڶĹƽȵʵоȡ˳ɹµĹڳоо޴ۺʵDZ㷺Ľ۽ǰܱ


ڵ¹ԵһҪȱʵоŷҲˡѧijоO?atiרۻĽ㡣෴أоЩӦڸΪ۵۵ķѧҶԳоͬЩ۵о۽ʱֱԼġͨ˵ѧȱٰԵӽǣϵͳ۷ȴṩɹʵۡ


¬µŷӣͨĺϷһ⣬˶ƺһ֪ΪûбµۺĿһֵע⣬Ϊڵ¹¬Ʒ㣬һ̶ϳƷҲΪ¬ȣʵ׼Ե侫ȷ¬Ļѧԡ˵һȻӦôµоֱֽҲûȥԣ¬ͨĺϷϵͳ۷ѧµΪڶʵԳо


ϵͳܷѧʵоŬʹòͬо໥ٽΪܡֽϻ൱ձҪԣΪѧڱҪġ۽΢۳̶ȵתܻóɹ롰ͨ˼Էij򻯡ķչеĹϵĿԣҲֵģһʼͽų⡣


оߺԶ׼ڴֻӣԺǷҪίɵı绤ʦ±˵ҪԺ룬ֻҪЩ벻޹ؽҪġ߷Ժ1981һĴǷ񶨵ģBarnes v. JonesɪWasserman 1989۵ԺϤЩͥ߾ᴿشӹ߽ǶȳԵо϶᲻ͬڵ¹°ķ˶΢IJȡijһĹԵͨڳǷܹLeventhal 1980һʵڴģΪغķBarrett and Lamm 1989ֵ¹ʵߵĿԱȽӡ


һ棬ЩۼѧԲЩõġ㷺ʵоֱڣȱʵоĻ϶Էɳ۽еϵͳеLind 1994aרۻɴ㷺ġмֵĹ1992һλصǶԸеоۺͽܽۡڶλ1993УԽۺʵѰһijѧ˵ṩһЩɵĹ1996ĵλŬ巽ӦõһЩ򣺶򣨼ŦױУĹͬΪоֶΣŷ˵򣬳빤ijͻ취ͨʵ֡ط塱Լ˽ҵеġ򡱡


References


Adams, J. Stacy. 1963. Toward an Understanding of Inequity. Journal of Abnormal and


Social Psychology 67: 422-36.


Alexander, L. 1987. The Relationship Between Procedural Due Process and Substantive


Constitutional Rights. University of Florida Law Review 39: 323-43.


Alexander, Sheldon, and Marian Ruderman. 1987. The Role of Procedural and Distributive


Justice in Organizational Behavior. Social Justice Research :177-98.


Alexy, Robert. 1978. Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Frankfurt am Main:


Suhrkamp.


. 1981. Die Idee einer Prozeduralen Theorie der juristischen Argumentation.


Rechtstheorie Beiheft 2: 177-88.


Aubert, Vilhelm. 1963. Competition and Conflict Discussions: Two Types of Conflict and


Conflict Resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution 7: 26 42.


Austin, William , and Neil C. McGinn. 1997. Sex Differences in Choice of Distribution


Rules. Journal of Personality 45: 379-94.


Barrett, Edith J. And Helmut Lamm. 1989. The Role of Procedural Justice in the Allocation


of Limited Resources: A West German Perspective. Social Justice Research 3: 21-30.


Barrett-Howard, Edith, and Tom R. Tyler. 1986. Procedural Justice As a Criterion in


Allocation Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 296-304.


Bayles, Michael D. 1990. Procedural Justice: Allocation to Individuals. Dordrecht:


Kluwer.


Berkemann, J?rg. 1989. Fairne? als Rechtsprinzip. Juristische Rundschau: 221-28.


Berkowitz, Leonard, and Elaine Walster, eds. 1976. Equity Theory: Toward a General


Theory of Social Interaction. New York: Academic Press.


Bierbrauer, Gnter. 1982. Gerechtigkeit und Fairness im Verfahren. In Alternativeen


in der Ziviljustiz, edited by E. Blankernburg et al. K?ln. Bundesanzeiger.


Bierbrauer, Gnter, Walther Gottwald, and Beatrix Birnbreier-Stahlberger, eds. 1995.


Verfahrensgerechtigkeit. Rechtspsychologische Forschungsbeitr?ge fr die


Justizpraxis: K?ln. Verlag Otto Schmidt.


Bierbrauer, Gnter, Kwok Leung, E. Allan Linde, et al. 1994. Cultural and Situational


Determinants of Disputing Preferences and Disputing Behavior. Working paper,


American Bar Foundation, Chicago.


Bierhoff, Hans Werner. 1986.Sozialer Kontext als Determinate der wahrgenommenen


Gerechtigkeit. Zeitschrift fr Sozialpsychologie 13: 66-78.


----. 1992. Prozedurale Gerechtigkeit: Das Wie und Warum der Fairne?. Zeitschrift fr


Sozialpsychologie 23: 163-78.


Bierhoff, Hans Werner, Ernst Buck, and Renate Klein. 1989. Attractiveness and


Respectability of the Offender As Factor in the Evaluation of Criminal Cases. In


Criminal Behavior and the Justice System, edited by H. Wegener, F. L?sel, and J.


Hansch. New York: Springer Verlag.


Bies, R.J. And J.s.Moag. 1986. Interactional Justice-Communication Criteria of


Fairness: In Research on Negotiation in Organizations, edited by R.J.Lewicki,


B.M.Sheppard, and H.M.Bazermann. Greenwich, Conn.:JAI Press.


Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.


. 1968. Interaction-Social Exchange. In International Encyclopedia of the Social


Science, Vol.7, edited by D.L.Sills. New York: Macmillan.


Bora, Alfons. 1993. Gesellschaftliche Integration durch Verfahren-Zur Funktion von


Verfahrensgerechtigkeit in der Technikfolgenabsch?tzung und bewertung.


Zeitschrift fr Rechtssoziologie 14:55-79.


. 1995. Procedural Justice As a Contested Concept: Sociological Remarks on the Group


Value Model. Social Justice Research 8: 175-95.


Brett, Jeane. 1986. Commentary on Procedural justice Papers. In Research on Negotiation


in Organizations, edited by R.Lewicki, B.M.Scheppard, and H.M.Bazermann.


Grennwich, Conn.: JAI Press.


Cappelletti, Mauro. 1988. Trends of Procedural Justice in Contemporary Europe, In


Festschrift fr Werner Maihofer zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Arthur Kaufmann,


E.-M.Mestm?cker, and H.Zacher. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann Verlag.


Casper, Jonathan D. 1978. Having Their Day in Court: Defendant Evaluations of the


Fairness of Their Treatment. Law and Society Review 12:237-51.


Casper, Jonathan D., Tom R.Tyler and Bonnie B.Fisher. 1988. Procedural Justice in Felony


Cases. Law and Society Review 22:483-507.


Cohen, Ronald L. 1985. Procedural Justice and Participation. Human Relations 38:643-63.


. 1987. Distributive Justice: Theory and Research. Social Justice Research 1:19-40.


Connolly, Paul R.J., and Saundra Smith. 1983. The Litigants Perspective on Delay:


Waiting for the Dough. Justice System Journal 8:271-86.


Cook, Karen S., ed. 1987. Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park:Sage.


Damaska, M. 1975. Presentation of Evidence and Fact-Finding Precision. University of


Pennsylvania Law Review 123, 1083-1106.


Van den Daele, Wolfgang. 1991. Zum Forschungsprogramm der Abteilung Normbildung und


Umwelt. Ver?ffentlichungsreihe der Abteilung Normbildung und Umwelt des


Forschungsschwerpunkts Technik, Arbeit, Umwelt des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin


fr Sozialforschung Nr. Fs :91-301.


Diamound, Stanley, and H.Zeisel. 1977. Book Review. Duke Law Journal:1289-96.


Eder, Klaus. 1990. Prozedurales Recht und Prozeduralisierung des Rechts. Einige


bergriffliche Kl?rungen. In Wachsende Staatsaufgaben, sinkende


Steuerungsf?higkeit des Rechts, edited by Dieter Grimm. Baden-Baden: Nomos


Verlagsgesellschaft.


Elster, John. 1990. Local Justice, Archives Europennes de Sociologie 31:117-40.


Emerson, Richard M. 1972. Exchange Theory. In Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol.2,


edited by J.berger, M.Zelditch, and B.Anderson. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.


Feeley, Malcolm. 1979. The Process is the Punishment. New York:Sage.


Fischer, Karla, Neil Vidmar, and Ren Ellis. 1993. The Culture of Battering and the


Role of Mediation in Domestic Violence Cases. Southern Methodist University Law


Review 46:2117-74.


Folger, Robert. 1977. Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of Voice


and Improvement on Experienced Inequity. Journal of Personality and Social


Psychology 35:108-19.


. 1987. Distributive and Procedural Justice in the Workplace. Social Justice


Research 1:143-59.


Folger, Robert, and Jerald Greenberg. 1985. Procedural Justice: An Interpretive


Analysis of Personal Systems. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources


Management, Vol.3, edited by K.M.Rowland and G.R.Ferris. Greenwich, Conn.:JAI


Press.


Fry, W.R. and Cheney, G.1981. Perceptions of Procedural Fairness As a Function of


Distributive Preferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern


Psychological Association, Detroit.


Fry, W.R, and G.S.Leventhal.1997.Cross-Situational Procedural Preferences: A


Comparison of Allocation Preferences and Equity Across Different Social Settings.


Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological,


Washington, D.C.


Gibson, James L. 1989. Understanding of Justice: Institutional legitimacy, Procedural


Justice, and political Tolerance. Law and Society Review 23: 469-96.


----.1991.Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Compliance with Supreme


Court Decisions: A Question of Causality. Law and Society Review 25:631-5.


Gilles, Peter. 1981. Zum Bedeutungszuwachs und Funktionswandel des Proze?rechts.


Juristische Schulung:402-09.


----.1992. Material vs. Formal view of Procedure and Legitimation of Judicial


Decisionmaking Through Procedural Norms. Paper prepared for an O?ati workshop on


procedural justice, 8-11 June, O?ati, Spain.


Gouldner, Alvin W., and J.Timothy Sprehe. 1965. The Study of Man.


Greenberg, Jerald, and Robert Folger. 1983. Procedural Justice, Participation, and the


Fair Process Effects in Groups and Organizations. In Basic Group Process, edited


by P.B.Paulus. New York: Springer Verlag.


Greenberg, Jerald, and Tom R.Tyler. 1987. Why Procedural Justice in Organizations?


Social Justice Research 1:127-42.


Habermas, Jrgen. 1983. Moralbewu?tsein und Kommunikatives Handeln. Framkfurt am Main:


Suhrkamp.


----. 1987. Wie ist Legitimit?t durch Legalit?t M?glich? Kritische Justiz 20:1-16.


----.1992. Faktizit?t und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.


Haller, volkmar. 1987. Zum Einflu? von Urteilsh?he und empfundender distributiver und


prozeduraler Gerechtigkeit auf die Urteilszufriedenheit sowie auf die Beurteilung


von Richter und Gerichtsbarkeit bei jugendlichen Strafgefangenen. Diss., faculty


of Psychology, Philips-Universit?t Marburg.


Haller, Volkmar, and Stefan Machura. 1995. Procedural Justice at German Courts As Seen


by Defendants and Juvenile Prisoners. Social Justice Research 8: 197-215.


Hartmann, Michael. 1987. Reflexives Recht am Ende? Zum Eindringen materiellen Rechts


in die Tarifautonomie. Zeitschrift fr Soziologie 16: 16-32.


Hayden, Robert M., and Jill K. Anderson. 1979. On the Evaluation of Procedural Systems


in Laboratory Experiments:A Critique of Thibaut and Walker. Law and Human Behavior


3: 21-38.


Heinz, A.M. 1985. Procedure Versus Consequence: Experimental Evidence of Preferences


for Procedural and distributive Justice. In Courts and Criminal Justice: Emerging


Issues, edited by S. Talarico. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.


Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang. 1989. Konflictmittler in Verhandlungen. Baden-Baden:


Nomos-Verlag.


Hofmann, Roland. 1992. Verfahrensgerechtigkeit. Paderborn: Ferdinand Sch?ningh.


Homans, George C. 1960. Theorie der sozialen Gruppe. Opladen: Westdeutscher Veriag.


----. 1972. Elementarformen sozialen Verhaltens. 2 nd ed.,Opladen: Westdeutscher


Verlag.


Houiden, Pauline. 1981. Impact of procedural Modification on Evaluations of plea


Bargaining. Law and Society Review 15:267-316.


Kahn, Arnold, Robin E. Nelson, and William P. Gaeddert. 1980. Sex of Subject and


Compositon of the Group as Determinants of Reward Allocations. Journal of


Personality and Social Psychology 38:737-50.


Kahn, Arnold, V. E. OLeary, J.E. Krulewitz, and helmut Lamm. 1980. Equity and Equality:


Male and Female Means to a Just End. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2:173-97.


Kaufmann, Arthur. 1989. Prozedurale Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Mnchen:Verlag der


Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.


Klein, Renate, and Hans Werner Bierhoff. 1991. Responses to Achievement Situations.


The Mediation Function of Perceived Fairness.


Ladeur, Karl Heinz. 1990. Selbstorganisation sozialer Systeme und Prozeduralisierung


des Rechts. In Wachsende Staatsaufgabensinkende Steuerungsf?higkeit des


Rechts, edited by Dieter Grimm. Baden-Baden:Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.


Landis, Jean M., and Lynne Goodstein. 1987. When is Justice Fair? An Integrated Approach


to The Outcome Versus Procedure Debate. American Bar Foundation Research Journal


7:675-707.


Landy, Frank J., Janet Barnes-Farell, and Jeanette N. Cleveland. 1980. Perceived


Fairness and Accuracy of Performance Evaluation: A Follow-Up. Journal of Applied


Psychology 65:355-56.


Lane, Robert E. 1988. Procedural Goods in a Democracy: How One Is Treated Versus What


One Gets. Social Justice Research 2:177-92.


Lerner, Melvin J., and Linad A. Whitehead. 1980. Verfahrensgerechtigkeit aus der Sicht


der Gerechtigkeitsmotiv-Theorie. In Gerechtigkeit und soziale Interaktion,


edited by G. Mikula. Bern: Huber.


Lerner, Melevin J., and Sally C. Lerner, eds. 1981. The Justice Motive in Social


Behavior.New York: Plenum.


Leung, Kwok, and E.Allan Lind. 1986. Procedural Justice and Culture: Effects of Culture,


Gender, and Investigator Status on Procedural Preferences. Journal of Personality


and Social Psychology 50: 1134-40.


Leventhal, Gerald S. 1980. What Should Be Done With Equity Theory? In Social Exchange:


Advances in Theory and Research, edited by K.J.Gergen, M.S.Greenberg, and


R.H.Willis. New York: Plenum.


Lind, E.Allan 1994a. Procedural Justice, Disputing, and Reactions to Legal Authorities.


Working paper, American Bar Foundation, Chicago.


----. 1994b. Justice and Authority in Organizations. Working paper, American Bar


Foundation, Chicago.


Lind, E.Allan, Bonnie E.Erickson, Nehemia Friedland, and Michael Dichenberger. 1978.


Reactions to Procedural Models for Adjudicative Conflict Resolution: A Cross-


National Study. Journal of Conflict Resolution 22:318-41.


Lind, E.Allan, Robert J.MacCoun, Patricia A.Ebener, William L.F.Felstiner,


Deborach R.Hensler, Judith Resnik, and Tom R.Tyler. 1990. In the Eye of the


Beholder: Tort Litigants Evaluations of their Experiences in the Civil


Justice System. Law and Society Review 24:953-96.


Lind, E.Allen, and Tom R.Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New


York: Plenum.


Luhmann, Niklas. 1969. Legitimation durch Verfahren. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.


Macdonald, R.A. 1981. A Theory of Procedural Fairness. Windsor Yearbook of Access to


Justice, Vol. 1:3-34.


Machura, Stefan. 1994a. Procedural and Distributive Fairness as Seen by German


Defendants. Paper presented at Law and Society annual meeting, 17 June, Phoenix,


Arizona.


----. 1994b. Trust and Procedural Fairness: How Are Lawyers, Judges, and Public


Prosecutors Seen by German Defendants? Paper presented at the thirteenth World


Congress of Sociology, 18 July, Bielefeld, Germany.


Martin, Guido, Heidemarie Renk, and Margaretha Sudhof. 1989. Ma?st?be, Foren,


Verfahren: Das Prozeduralisierungskonzept Rudolf Wieth?lters. Kritische Justiz


2:244-57.


Matsamura, Yoshiyuki. 1991. Procedural Justice in Disputing Resolution C Japan and the


West. Paper presented at the Law and Society annual meeting, 26-29 June, Amsterdam.


MacEwen, Craig A., and Richard J. Maiman. 1986. The Relative Significance of Disputing


Forum and Dispute Characteristics for Outcome and Compliance. Law and Society


Review 20: 439-47.


Nahamowitz, Peter. 1987. Effcktivit?t wirtschaftlicher Steuerungein Beitrag zur


AutopoiesisDebatte. Kritische Justiz 20:411-33.


Nahamowitz, Peter. 1988. Autopoiesis oder ?konomischer Staatsinterventionismus?


Zeitschrift fr Rechtssoziologie 9:36-73.


Nelson, William. 1980. The Very Idea of Procedural Justice, Ethics 90: 502-11.


Neumann, Ulfrid. 1989. Materiale und Prozedurale Gerechtigkeit im Strafverfahren.


Zeitschrift fr die gessamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 101: 52-74.


Nothdurft, Werner. 1987. Die Ordnung des Konflikts. Gespr?chsanalyse der


Konfliktbehandlung vor dem Schiedsmann. In Das Gteverfahren vor dem Schiedsmann,


edited by Klaus F.R?hl. K?ln: Carl Heymanns Verlag.


OBarr, William M., and John M.Conley. 1985. Litigant Satisfaction Versus Legal


Adequacy in Small Claims Court Narratives. Law and Society Review 19: 661-701.


----. 1988. Lay Expectations of the Civil Justice System. Law and Society Review 22:


137-61.


Peters, Bernhard. 1991. Rationalit?t, Recht, und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main:


Suhrkamp.


Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


Rie, Michael A. 1990. ?konomischer Grenzen der Lebensrettung? Zur Mikroallokation in


der Gesundheitspolitik. In Sicherheit und Freiheit, edited by C. Sachsse and


E.H.Tristam. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.


R?hl, Klaus F. 1987. Rechtssoziologie. K?ln: Heymanns.


Rottleuthner, Hubert. 1983. Befriedigungswirkung und Befolgung beiVergleichen. In Der


Proze?vergleich, edited by W.Gottwald, W.Hutmacher, K.F.R?hl, and D.Strempel.


Bonn: Bundesanzeiger.


Schmidt, Volker H. 1992. Lokale Gerechtigkeit. Perspektiven soziologischer


Gerechtigkeitsanalyse. Zeitschrift fr Soziologie 21: 3-15.


----. 1993. Zum Verh?ltnis prozeduraler und distributive Gerechtigkeit. Zeitschrift


fr Rechtssoziologie 13: 80-96.


Sheppard, Blair H., and Neil Vidmar. 1980. Adversary Pretrial Procedures and


Testimonial Evidence: Effects of Lawyers Role and Machiavellianism. Journal of


Personality and Social Psychology 39: 320-32.


Spittler, Gerd. 1967. Norm und SanktionUntersuchungen zum Sanktionsmechanismus.


Olten: Walter.


Teubner, Gunther. 1982. Reflexives Recht. Archiv fr Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie:


14-59.


----. 1989. Recht als autopoietisches System. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.


----. ,ed. 1986. Autopoiesis in Law and Society. Berlin: de Gruyter.


Teubner, Gunther, and Helmut Willke. 1984. Kontext und Autonomie: Gesellschaftliche


Selbststeuerung durch relexives Retch. Zeitschrift fr Rechrssoziologie 6: 4-


35.


Thibaut, John, and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis.


Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum.


----. 1978. A Theory of Procedure. California Law Review 66: 541-66.


Treiber, Hubert. 1975. Verfahren als Herrschaftsmechanismus: Zu Niklas Luhmanns


Legitimation durch Verfahren. Kriminalsoziologische Bibliographie 8: 19-24.


Tyler, Tom R. 1984. The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendants Evaluations of Their


Courtroom Experience. Law and Society Review 18: 51-74.


----. 1987a. Conditions Leading to Value Expressive Effects in Judgements of Procedural


Justice: A Test of Four Models. Journal of Personality and social Psychology 52:


333-44.


----. 1978b. Procedural Justice Research. Social Justice Research 1: 41-65.


----. 1988. What is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness


of Legal Procedures. Law and Society Review 22: 103-35.


----. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.


Tyler, Tom R., and Anderew Caine. 1981. The Influence of Outcomes and Procedures on


Satisfaction with Formal Leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology


41: 642-55.


Tyler, Tom R., Jonathan D. Casper, and Bonnie Fisher. 1990. Maintaining Allegiance to


Political Authorities: The Role of Prior Attitudes and the Use of Fair Procedures.


American Journal of Political Science 33: 612-28.


Tyler, Tom R., and Robert Folger. !980. Distributional and Procedural Aspects of


Satisfaction with Citizen-Police Encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology


1: 282-92.


Tyler, Tom R., Yuen J. Huo, and E. Allan Lind. 1993. Preferring, Choosing, and Evaluating


Dispute Resolution Procedures: The Psychological Antecedents of Feelings and


Choices. Working paper, American Bar Foundation, Chicago.


Tyler, Tom R., and Allen Lind. 1990a. Intrinsic Versus Community-Based Justice Models:


When Does Group Membership Matter? Journal of Society Issues 46: 83-94.


----. 1990b. A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. American Bar Foundation Working


Paper Series. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.


Tyler, Tom R., and Kathleen McGraw. 1986. Ideology and the Interpretation of Personal


Experience: Procedural Justice and Political Quiescence. Journal of Social Issues


42:115-28.


Tyler, Tom r., and Kenneth A. Rasinski. 1991. Procedural Justice, Institutional


Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply


to Gibson. Law and Society Review 25:621-30.


Tyler, Tom R., Kenneth A. Rasinski, and Eugene Griffin.1986. Alternative Images of the


Citizen: Implications for Public Policy. American Psychologist41:970-8.


----. 1988. Fairness and Vote Choice in the 1984 Presidential Election. American


Politics Quarterly 16:5-24.


Tyler, Tom r., Kenneth A. Rasinski, and Nancy Spodick. 1985. The Influence of Voice


on Satisfaction With Leaders: Exploring the Meaning of Process Control. Journal


of Personality and Social Psychology 48:72-81.


Vidmar, Neil. 1987. Assessing the Effects of Case Characteristics and Settlement Forum


on Dispute Outcomes and Compliance. Law and Society Review 21:155-64.


----.1990. The Origins and Consequences of Procedural Fairness. Law and Social Inquiry


15:877-92.


Vidmar, Neil, and Nancy Laird.1983. Adversary social roles: Their Effects on Witnesses


Communication of Evidence and the Assessments of Adjudicators. Journal of


Personality and Social Psychology 44:888-98.


Vidmar, Neil, and Jeffrey Rice. 1991. Jury-Determined Settlements and Summary Jury


Trials: Observations About Alternative Dispute Resolution in an


Adversary Culture. Florida State university Law Review 19:89-104.


Wasserman, David. 1987. Pure Procedural Justice in Law, Sports, and Organ Transplants.


Paper presented at a meeting of the New York Society for Philosophy and Public


Affairs, 18 November, New York.


----.1989.Procedural Justice and the Convicted Criminal Defendant. Paper Presented at


Law and Society annual meeting, June, Madison, Wisconsin.


----.1992. The Procedural Turn: Social Heuristics and Neutral Values. Paper prepared


for an O?ati workshop on procedural justice.


Wells, Gary L.1992. Naked Statistical Evidence of Liability: Is Subjective Probability


Enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62:739-52.


Wieth?lter, Rudolf.1986. Materialization and Proceduralization in Modern Law. In


Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State, edited by G.Teubner.Berlin: de Gruyter.


----.1989. Proceduralization of the Category of Law. In Critical Legal Thought: An


American-German Debate, edited by C. Joerges and D.M.Trbek. Baden-Baden: Nomos


Verlag.



Klaus F. R?hl. Born 1938. Professor of Law, Chair for Philosophy and Sociology of Law at the Law Faculty of the Ruhr-Universit?t Bochum.Since 1993, editor of Zeitschrift fr Rechtssoziologie. Major Publications are: ber die lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe (Berlin: Dunker and Humblot,1969), Das Dilemma der Rechtstatsachenforschung (Tbingen: Mohr, 1974), Rechtssoziologie (K?ln:Heymanns, 1987), and Allgemeine Rechtslehre (K?ln:Heymanns,1995).


˼